Media ignore Rove's leak, White House falsehoods, Bush's promise to fire leaker
SUMMARY: Media outlets reporting on Karl Rove's resignation omitted key facts in their discussion
of Rove's involvement in the leak of Valerie Plame's identity -- that Rove in fact
leaked Plame's
identity to columnist Robert Novak and another reporter, that then-White House
spokesman Scott McClellan initially denied that Rove was involved in the leak,
and that Rove would not have been able to leave "on his own terms" had the White
House fulfilled a pledge to fire anyone "involved" in the Plame
leak.
Several news outlets reporting on the announcement by White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove that he will resign effective August 31 omitted key facts in their discussion of Rove's involvement in the leak of the identity of then-CIA operative Valerie Plame. In particular, several media reports noted that Rove was not indicted in the investigation, but did not report that Rove leaked Plame's identity to conservative columnist Robert D. Novak and then-Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper and that then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan initially denied that Rove was involved in the leak. McClellan, in fact, said the idea of Rove's involvement was "totally ridiculous." Media reports also noted White House claims that Rove was leaving at "the right time," "on his own terms," "at the time of his own choosing" and that Rove was not "decid[ing] whether to stay or go based on what the mob wants," but those same reports then did not mention that Rove would not have been able to leave "on his own terms" if the White House had fulfilled a pledge to fire anyone "involved" in the Plame leak. Nor did media note that, despite his leaking of classified information, the White House did not strip Rove of his security clearance, and, indeed, renewed it.
For example, an August 13 online New York Times article reported only that Rove was "a focus" of the Plame investigation and that he had "survived" and "emerged from the cloud of the investigation" to work on the 2006 midterm election effort, The article, however, reported Rove's "surviv[al]" and his comment that it was his intention to leave when he wanted to and not "based on whether it pleases the mob" without providing key facts concerning his involvement in the Plame case:
His standing had already diminished considerably. Since the midterm elections, Mr. Bush's political problems have mounted in Iraq, his pursuit of a new immigration policy failed in Congress and the White House has had to defend its actions in the dismissals of United States attorneys, among other issues. Mr. Rove, 56, survived an investigation into the leak of the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative only to face a flurry of subpoenas from Democratic-controlled committees on Capitol Hill that he has so far rebuffed, citing executive privilege.
[...]
He has been the focus in the Congressional investigations into the firings last year of several federal prosecutors, and he was until last year a focus of the C.I.A. leak case investigation that led to perjury charges for Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.
Mr. Rove emerged from the cloud of the investigation to try to stave off Republican defeats last fall. The subsequent failure was his biggest political loss during his tenure at the White House.
[...]
Mr. Rove said he knew that some people might suspect he was leaving office to avoid scrutiny but said, "I'm not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob."
Similarly, on the August 13, 10 a.m. edition of MSNBC Live, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell reported only that Rove "has been under incredible scrutiny over the last few years in the CIA leak case where he was appearing before the grand jury five times" and that he was "never charged in that case." About a half-hour later, O'Donnell reported that "part" of the reason Rove and others thought now would be a "good time" to resign is that "Rove gets to leave on his own terms" after "[h]e got through the CIA leak case, where he was under intense scrutiny," and was "[n]ot forced out at that time." She then stated that "by walking out now, there is a little bit less intense glare on him, and he's able to walk out the door, he says, in a time of his own choosing."
Likewise, on the August 13 broadcast of NBC's Today, O'Donnell reported only that Rove "was implicated but never charged in the CIA leak case." Earlier, during the report, she stated that, according to unnamed "advisers," "while there's never a good time [for Rove to leave], this was the right time."
And on the August 13 broadcast of CBS's The Early Show, White House correspondent Bill Plante reported that he thinks Rove left at this time because "the threat from the special counsel has ended." Without reporting any further details about the "threat" from the "special counsel" - or even that the "special counsel" was investigating the CIA leak case -- Plante then, like the New York Times article, uncritically reported that Rove said "he's not going to decide whether to stay or go based on what the mob wants," which Plante said was "another swipe at the Democrats." Plante also reported that Rove "counseled the president on everything from Supreme Court nominees to Social Security reform to national security issues," but still did not mention Rove's leaking of Plame's identity, the White House's initial denials, its pledge to fire the leaker, or the renewal of Rove's security clearance.
In addition, while both the Associated Press and washingtonpost.com reported on August 13 that Rove did leak Plame's identity, neither reported Bush's pledge to fire anyone "involved" in the Plame leak or the fact that Rove's security clearance was renewed despite the leak. The AP also did not report that the White House had initially denied that Rove was involved in the leak, a fact that the washingtonpost.com article did note. From the AP article:
A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months during the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name but he was never charged with any crime. In a more recent controversy, Rove, citing executive privilege, has refused to testify before Congress about the firing of U.S. attorneys.
[...]
Rove testified before a federal grand jury in the investigation into the leak of the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA officer whose husband was a critic of the war in Iraq. That investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of lying and obstructing justice. Plame contends the White House was trying to discredit her husband.
Attorneys for Libby told jurors at the onset of his trial that Libby was the victim of a conspiracy to protect Rove. Details of any save-Rove conspiracy were promised but never materialized.
The most explicit testimony on Rove came from columnist Robert Novak, who outed Plame in a July 2003 column. He testified that Rove, a frequent source, was one of two officials who told him about Plame. Libby, with whom he seldom spoke, was not a source.
Rove, though, was not indicted after testifying five times before the grand jury, occasionally correcting misstatements he made in his earlier testimony.
The jury in Libby's trial did not hear that testimony, nor did it hear that Rove is credited as an architect of Republican political victories and has been accused by opponents of playing dirty tricks.
All that jurors heard is that Rove leaked Plame's identity and, from the outset, got political cover from the White House. He was never charged with a crime.
From the washingtonpost.com article:
Rove was investigated for his role in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative whose husband publicly criticized the administration's handling of prewar intelligence. Although White House spokesman Scott McClellan initially spoke with Rove and publicly denied that Rove had anything to do with the leak, the investigation later determined that he had in fact divulged or confirmed Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.
Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald brought Rove before the grand jury multiple times and considered charging him in the case but ultimately decided not to. Fitzgerald did indict I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to investigators, although Bush later commuted his sentence. Libby's attorney asserted at his trial that he was being sacrificed to protect Rove.
From the August 13 broadcast of NBC's Today:
O'DONNELL: This is the biggest departure from the Bush inner circle. Karl Rove tells me this morning that he is leaving at the end of the month, and senior advisers here say he will be a great loss because he is a brilliant mind.
Why now? Well, the chief of staff here has told top key players that if they stay beyond Labor Day, they are obligated to stay for the rest of the president's term; that's about 17 months. So advisers tell me that Rove and the president have been talking about this for a long time, more than a year, and while there's never a good time, this was the right time, they say.
He decided to stay after Democrats took hold of Congress and because of the immigration debate and, of course, the Iraq war. Now he wishes to spend more time with his wife, Darby, and their college-age son. Now, Rove is the best known White House staffer for both good and not-so-good reasons. He is credited with helping the president win his White House victories, but he's also been a repeated target of scrutiny. He was implicated but never charged in the CIA leak case. He was most recently subpoenaed in the inquiry about the firing of U.S. attorneys. Advisers here say he will remain one of the president's greatest friends.
From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the August 13 edition of MSNBC Live, with host Mika Brzezinski:
O'DONNELL: People inside the White House have called him brilliant. His critics have said he has at times been ruthless, and as you know, he has been under incredible scrutiny over the last few years in the CIA leak case where he was appearing before the grand jury five times -- never charged in that case -- where he was subpoenaed by Sen. Patrick Leahy, to try to get him to answer questions about the firing of U.S. attorneys. So Rove has had lots of legal bills over the last few years, and a very big imprint on what the president has been doing, especially on domestic policy -- Mika.
[...]
BRZEZINSKI: Kelly, given the way analysts have chewing up this information all morning long, do you expect any tweaks on the spin of this?
O'DONNELL: Well, I think people will dissect this for a while, and they'll try to get a sense of what it all means for the president and for this administration going forward and what sort of role Karl Rove has played in all of this. So there's plenty of time to think about that and get a sense of really how he should be judged: as "brilliant," as some in the White House have described him, or "ruthless," as some of his political opponents have viewed him. Today, I would expect speak in favorable, positive, maybe even glowing terms about his friendship with Rove, which advisers point out will continue. So it's not as if Rove is going off the reservation, out of reach of this president. They can still be in touch, but he won't be here 16, 18 hours a day, five, six, seven days a week any longer.
BRZEZINSKI: Kelly I'm just wondering, in terms of the White House reporters there, did this news come as a surprise to everyone there? I know it broke through The Wall Street Journal this morning. And do you think his influence will continue, just long distance?
O'DONNELL: Well, a lot of people thought Karl Rove would be what is referred to as an "eight-year man," staying all the way through two full terms. So to the extent that he would leave at all, that is surprising to some, not surprising to White House insiders. They say that this conversation has been going on for more than a year. Rove himself said to me today that he has been talking to the president about this for a long time and decided with his family and Josh Bolten, chief of staff, and the president that this time, August, would be a good time to go. Part of it is that Rove gets to leave on what's referred to as his own terms. He got through the CIA leak case, where he was under intense scrutiny -- not forced out at that time. And he also gotten through the change of Congress now being in the hands of Democrats. So by leaving now, there is a little bit less intense glare on him, and he's able to walk out the door, he says, in a time of his own choosing.
BRZEZINSKI: Hmm. Very nice. Kelly O'Donnell at the White House. Thank you very much.
From the August 13 broadcast of CBS' The Early Show, with host Harry Smith:
PLANTE: Karl Rove was more than the architect of the Bush victories. He was a longtime confidante and the primary shaper of the Bush political strategy. Rove and the president have known each other for more than 30 years. He first got involved in Republican politics back in the 1970s. Known as a shrewd political strategist and a thorn in the side to Democrats, Rove counseled the president on everything from Supreme Court nominees to Social Security reform to national security issues. His influence at the White House touched everything. Rove was involved in almost all major decisions, including the firing of those nine U.S. attorneys, which he defended even as he dismissed the criticism of Democrats.
ROVE [video clip]: To my mind, it's a lot of politics. I understand that's what Congress has a right to play around with, and they're going to do it.
PLANTE: Rove says he thinks it's time to move on and tells The Wall Street Journal he plans to return to Texas to spend more time with his family.
[...]
SMITH: Here's the question of the hour: Why now?
PLANTE: Because, Harry, I think the threat from the special counsel has ended. Rove is thumbing his nose at congressional Democrats who, of course, want him to come and testify. He said that he's not going to decide whether to stay or go based on what the mob wants -- another swipe at the Democrats. He says he's also going to write a book. That should be interesting.
SMITH: That should be interesting.















Rove is like the preverbial thorn in the side of the left, that has just been removed. The side still hurts, but you just can't blame the thorn anymore.
Move on.
Yes Tommy,
Let's focus on all of the positive things that Mr. Rove has accomplished......Ah, maybe you could help me out?
I don't believe a thorn has any positive sides, but maybe you can help me out?
Tommy,
How can we move on, as you said, if the media portrays only the good side of a person's past? Don't we need to be fair and balanced?
I can't find anything positive about Mr. Rove, but you seem intent on defending him which is why I was asking you!
The media will not prosecute him legally if there is evidence to warrant such legal action. If there is, the appropriate courts and jurisdictions will handle it.
For him to continue to be the media's, or the left's, whipping boy, is useless.
Tommy,
You're joking right? First off, who controls the Justice Department? Second, who cares if he is tried in court, we know what he has done and since the press is reveiwing his "story" in light of his resignation, we would like it to be fair and balanced, not one sided!
So, how, or on what level, do you want Rove punished? Apparently a relentless media going after him is enough for you, fine.
No,
Just tell us both sides of his story instead of slanting it to make him look good.
What? The reporters are telling how much scrutiny he has come under during his tenure, that he was known to be ruthless, that he's been thumbing his nose at congressional Democrats, what more do you want? Are those all positives for you? And as far as I know, he is not been criminally charged with anything.
So you just want them to be ALL nasty, that would satisfy you.
"...that he was known to be ruthless, that he's been thumbing his nose at congressional Democrats, what more do you want?"
I think to Karl those would be considered compliments. The scrutiny he's come under, not so much.
don't you think bush should have fired him?
That's an irrelevant and hypothetical question, why ask it? If Bush wants to keep or fire one of his advisors, that is his business. He is not an elected official.
afraid to answer?
Ya right, your silly irrelevant question games don't interest me. If you have a point, make it, otherwise all you get from me is a yawn.
ya right tommy, pretend you don't know what i mean. bush said he would fire anyone "involved" in the plame leak. rove was heavily involved and bush should have fired him. agree or not?
Bush's judgement, or lack thereof, has been rightly questioned many times on many issues, from spending, to border enforcement, to the Iraq War. I hold him 100% accountable and he is responsible for those decisions.
His hiring or firing decisions regarding his own staff may put his credibility in this area in question, but it does not rise to the level of the ones stated above.
so i think your answer is no, he should not have.
Bush's judgement, or lack thereof, has been rightly questioned many times on many issues, from spending, to border enforcement, to the Iraq War. I hold him 100% accountable and he is responsible for those decisions.
His hiring or firing decisions regarding his own staff may put his credibility in this area in question, but it does not rise to the level of the ones stated above.
Tommy
-------------------------
And you are 100% accountable for putting the moron in office and defending his idiotic Presidency all the way over the cliff.
Which is MUCH better than following an idiotic presidency all the way under the desk. It's well understood that this entire problem in Iraq could have been avoided if the guy YOU voted for had actually attempted to stop the man responsible for al queda. At least Bush has the balls to stand up to terrorism, while you prefer using yours to find a way to avoid facing facts and hiding behind your racist views of America!
Bush definitely should have fired Rove for exposing Valery Plame but sice Bush was obviously part of the conspiracy to defame Joe he would have had to admit complicity if he did so.
This administration has proven that it is the most corrupt in American history and the one most contemptious of the Constitution. All its members are complicit and as long as Gonzales is in charge of who and what gets prosecuted none of the members of the Bush conspiracy will get charged or be judged by the Judicial Branch as they should be.
The members of the Bush criminal conspiracy should really be prosecuted under RICO after they are impeached - probably during the next presidential administration so Bush cannot pardon them.
Bush would have had to fire Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage if he were to follow through on what Scott McClellan said as mouthpiece for the Decider.
Rove violated the laws regarding handling of classified material.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html
Ah, yes. It doesn't matter how we got into Iraq...we're already there. After all, you can't bring those 1 million Iraqis back, can you? It doesn't matter if the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen...Bush's term is almost over. It doesn't matter if the Vice President outed a CIA agent in a petty political ploy to discredit his critics...she was just a desk jockey anyway...Move along.
Except it hasn't been removed. For me, the thorn isn't Rove himself, as an individual, as much as it is the lying, cheating, and stealing that he has come to represent.
Don't get me wrong: I hate Rove. But he and his kind are going to continue to corrupt democracy in increasingly despicable ways no matter where they work. It will only stop if people like him start going to jail.
This particular thorn has left us with an infection.
I don't follow your analogy. A thorn is not a person. A better analogy would be someone jabs a knife in your leg on purpose, and you get upset. The person then decides they feel like taking the knife out of your leg (certainly not just because they wanted to be civil or felt like they were wrong) and then wonders why you are still mad since they pulled the knife out. I mean get over it, it's just damaged tissue (ie country).
Ok, a thorn is not a person, but a knife is. Got it.
Aw poor Tommy is sad because the Architect of Republican Fascism just cut and ran. How disappointing. Waaaa. I feel for you.
It's so wrong that the media is so hard on poor KKKarl. Leave him alone! It isn't fair. He's just a big fluffy marshmallow. Waaah sniff sniff
Faux News is desperately looking for a Black celebrity to cuff around for a few news cycles. Scapegoat anyone? Look out Barry here they come....
Who needs Barry, there are enough that do it themselves! When you figure out that misbehavior isn't the norm, perhaps you won't be so angry.
The Autopsychic/ProudChristian trifecta! Racist, incoherent and condescending. Keep it up.
Clams, you're showing your ignorance. What was racists? What was incoherent? What was condensending?
Please enlighten us with your brilliance and explain your charges.
I think this qualifies as the most ridiculous thing you've ever said. Semiauto's analogy was clearly about the person wielding the knife, not about the knife. In this case, the knife-weilding thug'd be Rove, and the knife his various and sundry actions in partisanly politicizing everything to get his good buddy (who "affectionately" calls him Turdblossom) more power than even King George III. Semiauto told you about the wound.
Do we hafta explain everythin' to ya?
As he's proven time and time again, the concept of the analogy simply isn't within his intellectual grasp. He's a concrete thinker and you've got to write in concrete terms, or else he ends up thinking that we're discussing actual thorns.
KKKarl Rove was not a thorn in the side of the left. He was a hemmorhoid on the a$$ of America.
On the WaPo site, the current lede has Rove describing himself as Moby Dick and the Democrats as Ahab.
He picked the wrong fiction. The Democrats are the Ghostbusters and he's Mr. Sta-Puf.
QUOTE
____________
Rove is like the preverbial thorn in the side of the left, that has just been removed.
___________
No, Rove was a thorn in the side of America; & thank God it's been removed.
Rove's whole shtick was to put party before country.
The results have been devastating.
Rove is leaving because somebody has the goods on him.
He's too arrogant & shallow to leave because he's simply freaked out by the incalculable damage he's caused.
The results have been devastating.
Uhh... devastating?? What has been devastated while Rove was present? Let me guess...a 'known' spy was revealed...yeah, that sure devastated the country!
Right wing fascists need to stop crying over the failed plan of Karl Rove to turn this nation into a one party neo con regime. Your days are numbered. Get over it ROFLMAO
As far as I'm concerned, another rat has just deserted a sinking ship. If Rove has nothing to hide, why not appear and testify before Congress? Why hide behind executive privilege? In my opinion, Rove shouldn't be going back to Texas at the end of the month, he should be going to jail.
It wouldn't surprise me if he was out of the country within a week. He'll never see the inside of a prison cell. He knows too much. Probably has pictures, too.
Gag. Just heard Karl Rove's "goodbye" on the Radio. He got all choked up and invoked God. Pardon me while I throw up on my keyboard.
A keyboard that's getting it for a good reason. We both know where it should be going, but delivery would be more than tricky.
Purges can be good, but not from the recieving end.
Haaaaaw! Up yours, too.
I can relate to that sentiment.
I've learned never to say never. After Bush is out of office, it is possible that Congress will still be investigating most of these scandals. Rove thought he could avoid having to answer for his role in most them. When Bush leaves office, there's, hopefully, no one left to protect him.
Well, that's a cheery thought. Can Bush pre-emptively pardon someone before they've been indicted? I'm sure Gonzo is working on that as we speak.
Can Bush pre-emptively pardon someone before they've been indicted?
His father did it. Most of the Iran-Contra figures he pardoned had not been indicted.
There are those who think that he has been "removed" and thus should be ignored. This is nothing but political group-think. A crime has been committed, and a wealthy man should be left alone because he no longer has an official title with this horrible WH?
If I work for a company, commit a crime against the workers or shareholders, and then leave my position, I should be ignored? Because I no longer hold that position?
We know that Rove committed crimes against the American people. Rove should receive no more or less advantages than you or me. Ever. I would be sitting in Gitmo without a lawyer if I had done such a thing.
While we are at it, why not get that idiot Novak back in for questioning. None of these clowns could ever get their stories straight.
This seems to be getting a little sick. I've seen a number of announcements about Rove leaving and read some news articles about it.
I almost feel like calling CNN and yelling, "just stop it! Listen if you want I'll pay for a motel room where you can show your appreciation to Mr. Rove."
"But I won't pay for any of those freaky Republican sex games. I' not paying for boys you can molest (Foley) or men to rape (Glen Murphy, Young Republican Federation chair) or women to rape (Michael Flory former head of Michigan Young Republicans) or diaper wearing (Vitter) or 'scary black men', who force you to offer them oral sex for $20.00 (Bob Allen)"
"No I'm just your average married gay man, not a Republican"
I really hate to point this out, but Pres. Bush did not promise to "fire anyone involved" with leaking CIA employee Plame's identity.
From MM's comments (above): In addition, while both the [link to talkingpointsmemo.com] title="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/08/karl_rove_to_resign_at_end_of.php">Associated Press and [link to www.washingtonpost.com] title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300180.html">washingtonpost.com reported on August 13 that Rove did leak Plame's identity, neither reported Bush's pledge to fire anyone "involved" in the Plame leak or the fact that Rove's security clearance was renewed despite the leak.
Actually, Bush said this: THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The "pledge" was conditional upon a violation of the law. Since Rove was never convicted (let alone charged) with any violation of the law, then there was no obligation to fire Rove.
I am no fan of this incompetent administration and I do not like what Rove has done on many issues. However, we need to be accurate.
No, you're confused.
Here's the press conference where Bush pledged to fire anyone involved.
Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html
Or does it depend on what the meaning of "yes" is?
This was a dishonest Q from the reporter -
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
The President had made no such "pledge."
The most reasonable interpretation of GWB's quick "yes" is that he was merely backing his original statement. The fact that GWB didn't catch the problem with the reporter's question is more of a comment on how slow and dim the Prez can be at times.
No, that wasnt the only thing said. At the time Scott McClellan was the White House press secretary that means HE spoke for the President and he said if anyone was involved with the leak they would not be working for the administration so it was NOT a dishonest question. It was a direct question about whether McClelland was in fact correct when he made that statement FOR the White House.
The question of whether or not there was really a pledge to fire anyone involved with the leak of CIA employee Plame can be debated back and forth. This summary of Prez. Bush's statements from USA Today demonstrates that the real "pledge" was contingent upon some violation of lawFROM USA TODAY:Some of President Bush's comments on what he would do if any aide were involved in leaking the identity of a CIA officer:Sept. 30, 2003: 'If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated (the) law, the person will be taken care of ... If somebody did leak classified information ... we'll take the appropriate action.'June 10, 2004: (Even though he had made no such vow, Bush was asked at a news conference if he stood by his 'pledge' to 'fire anyone' involved). 'Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.'Monday: 'If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration.'http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-18-bush-rove_x.htmAnd even if a person wants to believe that there was some kind of pledge, the fact is that Rove never technically revealed CIA employee Plame's NAME - From WIKIPEDIA on Karl Rove...Cooper wrote that Rove never used Plame's name nor indicated that she had covert status, although Rove did apparently convey that certain information relating to her was classified: "As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week---------------------------------------------------------The bottom line is that this is not really media criticism - it's a political argument.
Well I'm sure that the decider will decide to honor Karl "The Rat" Rove with the Presidential Medal Of Freedom just as he did Bremer and Tenet. "Heck of a job Rovie" Seems that his timeing is right on also, congress not being in session and all.
Rove is vile. He's the classic nerd that sat quietly by, biding his time until he could wreak his revenge. He has helped further corrupt the political process in this country. Ridicule, scorn and and humiliation should be heaped upon him from here on out, we can have a say in how history portrays his legacy. But we'll need to constantly remind them (the media, historians, etc) about the damage he's done so it never is allowed to happen again.
Last night I watched Suzanne Malveaux's report on CNN, twice (first on Dobb's show & then on Blitzer's show) about Rove leaving. The reports were virtually identical. Both times she stated that Rove had been "cleared of any wrong doing in the CIA leak case." Yes, she said "cleared of any wrong doing." We know this is false. He wasn't charged by the prosecutor, which is not the same as being cleared.
He wasn't charged precisely because of the obstruction of justice Scooter Libby was convicted of.